Creation of the Universe

Stylized, high-contrast images paired with creative motion graphics bring life to this scientific documentary and help illustrate the more abstract concepts being discussed. Narration explains that the Universe is said to have emerged 14 billion years ago in an event known as the "Big Bang." The Big Bang Theory presumes existence was borne from a microscopic density of energy. The energy released by in this moment is widely accepted by most scientists as the start of space and time as we know it.

The film incorporates Interviews with astrophysicists including Martin Rees, Alan Guth, Alfonso Aragon and Francisco Sanchez. The general scientific community has a 99% certainty in the Big Bang Theory; however, that certainty drops significantly when considering the moment leading up the bang itself, as it is almost impossible to recreate the conditions in a laboratory.

Inflationary Theory seeks to describe the very moment the universe began expanding. This theory proposes that a peculiar form of matter capable of turning gravity "on it's head" is responsible for the expansion of the Universe. Dark matter is noted to make up 95% of the universe, though little is known about what dark matter itself is comprised of.

Seeking to understand more about the nature of life itself, scientists turn to Mars for a better understanding of organic material, if and how the Red Planet ever supported living organisms, and how long ago? Comets are also studied for any insights they may offer into the vast history of the Universe and the direction in which it may be headed.

While Earth is the only indication of intelligent life that has been proven to date, there is a strong statistical likelihood that other life-sustaining planets do exist. There have been discoveries in the past twenty years regarding the movement of planets in other systems that further increase this likelihood.

Creation of the Universe questions the projected evolution of the Universe and what we may someday face in furthering space exploration, and whether we may even establish communication with intelligent beings. But for any of this to happen we must first harness the ability to travel at the speed of light - a capability that may very well come to pass.

32 Comments / User Reviews

/someone once told me a prevailing theory is that the universe has an exoskeletal barrier. (Not a continuum). What an obvliviously decrepit idea. If there was an edge to the universe then that assumes something beyond the edge. Like a void....space? DUH!

There's alot of questioning the validity of inflation theory in these comments. Lets just recoup from a different angle. Science has taken 2 measurements of time.

1: The size of the visible universe. It stretches out 13.7 billion years when we look at it.

2) The degradation of radiation of the cosmic background radiation. thus telling us how far away we are from the Big Bng that cause the radiation.

Now these 2 should be be able to be brought together, ending in a single point thus the Big Bang. But that doesn't happen. When the scientists after 13.7 billion years run out of time, the universe is still 70% of the size it is today. So they got creative, and launched this theory of inflation, where the 70% expands at infinite speed and acceleration. You blink you eye and voila all there will you didn't look.

Then the universe rolled along at the speed of light like we all know and continued on it's way for 13.7 billion years. The reason for this inflation to happen was that gravity reversed itself.

All this thinking is creative, not like in genius creative, more like tax fraud creative.

Aetzbar in amazon
The Newtonian universe is based on matter and force.
The Einsteinian universe is based on matter and energy.
The Aetzbarian universe is based on static time and energy.
There is no gravity, and there is no gravity waves.
There is Static Time , and there is Waves of Time in the static time.
There is a particles of Static Time.
Static Time is real and measured.
Everyone knows the Dynamic Time.
It is time to recognize the Static Time.

Guess well just ignore all the nonsense and unreasonable stuff in genesis. I'm sorry it's irresponsible to use part of it for support and claim that others are just some hyperbole or misinterpreted when it's quite clear what they mean. Clearer then your assumption of the womb indicating a big bang. Which it in itself is highly debatable.

To understand the creation of our universe you need do no more than follow the path that our universe is travelling along. Our galaxy and local group are being pulled towards the Virgo cluster which in turn is being pulled towards the Great Attractor which again is heading towards a node at the crossroads of the cosmic web. Eventually the local material around all these nodes will condense as the nodes themselves separate from each other. The contraction of the million plus galaxies in each individual node will create a singularity that will march onwards at speed forever or until it meets its mirror image head on from the opposite direction. Although the masses of these two singularities added together would appear to not have enough matter to create a successful big bang we should remember that E=mc2 + 1/2 mass x velocity2. The collisions shock wave disrupts gravity allowing inflation and hence the birth of a new Universe.

So the ultimate fate of the universe will be to continue expanding forever until the cosmos is so vast, dark and deserted that the term 'celestial neighborhood' will be a punchline? To infinity and beyond! Sounds pretty depressing, Dr. Science...so what're you gonna to do about it?

The only scientific value comes from the direct observations from different types of telescopes.
When it comes to interpret these observations, the Standard Model ideas is roughly limited to the interpretative use of 1/4 of the fundamental forces, the "gravity ruler of the Universe".
This of course leaves the other 3/4 part of fundamental forces explanations and hypothesis out of the Standard Model equations.
For instants: By observing the surroundings of a galactic center, the SM assumes, via gravity, a "heavy black hole" in this center where
everything disappears and that´s all. After this, all kinds of speculations takes off. And it is not much better with the Einsteinian ideas of "curving space" and all that jazz.
Electromagnetism and the assumed gravity has the same properties and if interpreting the galaxy according to electromagnetic dynamics in spheres – as in the Sun and Earth - the "heavy black holes" just resembles the galactic swirling poles in an electromagnetic and spherical circuit.
Gravity cannot explain the gamma ray outburst and ionized bubbles in galaxies, but electromagnetism certainly can and this is the only logical and cosmological explanation.
The "gravitational laws of celestial motion" is directly contradicted
in galaxies and it is amazing that modern science still accepts this
contradiction, which forces scientists to search for all kinds of "black
matter and energy ghosts" all over the place, when electromagnetodynamics and thermodynamics can explain everything small and large in the observable part of the Universe.

Stylized means they added superfolous imagery that has little to do with the subject.
It's a pretty generic documentary on the Universe with tidbits of knowledge here and there of what we currently understand.
Should be followed up with detailed subject science shows to understand how all the different parts work.

Cant watch it, anything with NASA in is BS, the big bang is all about trying to prove some god exist as painted on the sistine chapel ceiling, plus they faked the moon landing so NASA is pure Hollywood and anything they say is a lie. in fact ever since I have found out they faked the moon landing I cant watch anything with NASA in it, seems NASA is about proving god exist to the Americans.

I can't see how... First there was god who had gas and the universe expanded as a shart bubble? I can see it being more closely connected to Kabbalah. Not this monotheistic crap that has a bearded dude that can say let there be light yet has hand just in case that superpower fails and he has to flick a switch. But even if evidence is pointing in Kabbalahs direction doesn't mean they were right just means they stumbled upon an approximate truth on how the universe was formed. Aborigines have something similar... sort of. They dreamt they were here so there here, pretty much. Besides technically you got to listen to someone before you can decide if their lying.

mkherman .
- 02/23/2015 at 10:10

Agree with you about the hoax agency called NASA and the actors on the world's stage. However, the big bang theory is not a theory at all, it is a fact. Genesis 1 describes it in a very terse and short manner. It is the creation of a 'new universe' in the form of a baby in the womb. if you read the bible properly you'll see that the first day of 'creation' is the meeting of sperm and egg. Imagine a sperm travelling inside the dark and watery 'cave' of 'Heaven' and then there was light. In hebrew light=Or, a three letter word that describes the action of light: All/everything, spinning/multiplying and vibrating. The second day is the pregnancy and what happens inside the womb. Those who wrote the bible never knew about the world out there and were not about to speculate either. We are the reflection of the world and the cosmos, so they wrote about the creation and 7 stages in the life of the Hero, in this case God, the Emperor. It becomes very simple once you know the meaning of words used. Most of the time we are fed a fictional fantasy.

So sharp stuff tell me what is at the center of our galaxy then if not a black hole. Why do stars orbit something we can't see? The big bang is the best cosmological theory of our universes birth we currently have. Before you say how it's is based off dodgy math show me the math that is dodgy. There is only one unsolved infinity in it and we don't claim to understand the very beginning. So please show me where it is flawed myself and other astrophysicist would like to know. BTW the Thunderbird project if I remember correctly has no real college or accredited PhDs working on it.

No point watching this. This is not science. The 'Big Bang' hypothesis is only one explanation of the Universe. It was put forward by the monk Lemaitre (and expanded by Gamow and others) to reconcile the Universe and 'God'.

It is severely flawed. It does not take into account observations but is mostly a mathematical explanation based upon dodgey maths, at that.

As for 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'black holes' and all that other tripe, please pass me the sick bag.

Just try looking at the Thunderbolts Project and get some much, much better science.

You seem to be confused as to what science is and what it is not. For instance the big bang is a theory, not a hypothesis. A "hypothesis" graduates to a theory based on observable facts - the CMB, for example, is an observable fact predicted by the hypothesis, enabling the big bang as a legitimate theory.

Thunderbolts is a hypothesis that speculates, but provides no observable facts supporting it, thus preventing it becoming a theory. In other words Thunderbolts is hypothetical nonsense, without any observable scientific merit whatsoever.

Theories are not laws, nor fact. They can change or be rejected completely based on observation.

So... I hope it is clearer to you now, that you are calling an unsubstantiated speculative hypothesis "better science" than multiple established theories which you are calling "not science" and "tripe". Hardly scientific.

Lary9
- 11/08/2014 at 14:32

Georges Lemaitre wasn't a monk...he was a Catholic priest and a cosmologist.

mkherman .
- 02/23/2015 at 10:17

Enter the world of speculative science.
that 'monk' only described the Genesis 1 passage, the action that happens within Heaven's (woman) womb; the creation of a new baby (universe). The God referred to in the Genesis story is the Emperor, the Man, the one who was born to have dominion over all the 'animals (humans included).

John Murgaš
- 08/05/2014 at 23:50

how can you forecast the future of the universe if you don't know what the 95.1% is "Dark Matter & Dark Energy"

Science may not know what it is yet, but they can measure it's effects on what science does know. From there, extrapolations can be made and revised as data replaces the black holes in the formulas.

Ivar Nielsen
- 08/05/2014 at 10:06

The Big Bang as "a scientifical certainty"? (6:40)

A scientifical process can only be scientifical certain when it FULLY explains causes and effects.

"Big Bang" is based on assumptions and motions in the local part of the Universe and as long as it only uses the 1/4 part of the fundamental forces to "explain" the whole thing, this model lacks the explanations of the rest 3/4 part of the creative forces.

Excludingly using the only force of "gravity" which dymanics is unexplainable, it all ends up in assumptions on assumptions and pure speculations. This has nothing to do with science at all.

Even if life exists on some other planet there's no reason to expect any species to be intelligent. We're the smartest thing to ever happen to this planet - which isn't saying much.. Also, we've only been here about 200,000 years, a short little spark in Earth's 4.5 billion years and a teeny tiny fraction of a single percent of Earths species, 99% of which are extinct. We're quite likely to self-destruct in a nuclear war and render the planet near sterile for millions of years, so there's that?

Fabien L'Amour
- 08/04/2014 at 23:33

As far as I know, Earth is the only indication of life (intelligent or not) that has been proven so far.

Lary9
- 11/08/2014 at 14:44

All we need to do is find life--- any life (bacteria for example) outside our local cosmic purview--- and evolution will inexorably shepherd the 'intelligence' part wherever cells arise. Plus, when we find just one (and we will) then a universe populated with life on many other "Goldilocks Zone" planets, is highly probable. There's an actual equation that takes account of what is required to jumpstart life and, given just one other planet with life, it predicts billions of possible others..

Fabien L'Amour
- 11/08/2014 at 23:22

Agreed with a small reserve on the "evolution will inexorably shepherd the intelligence" part. If the resources were really scarce or conditions very harsh, it's possible there wouldn't be enough nutriments to develop a brain on an exoplanet. Life would forever stay at the microbial level.

L. E. Alba
- 11/13/2014 at 23:48

Agreed. That habitat is a powerful vector embedded within the law of natural selection is clear.